Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

Oh Karl!

I never mentioned the prophetic perfect. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)

On 28/05/2013, at 2:00 AM, "K Randolph" <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

George:

On Mon, May 27, 2013 at 5:28 AM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au> wrote:

Oh Karl!

Your comments strike me as odd, and perhaps a little presumptuous.

I refer to your argument that the Qatal indicates definiteness while the Yiqtol indefiniteness. That theory I was taught, in fact as being the basis of the so-called prophetic future, but it’s been so long since I last thought of it that I forgot about that theory until you reminded me of it.

Yes it’s presumptuous of me to think that you were taught the same theory or even that your theory is the same as I was taught, but it certainly sounds the same.

(In mentioning “prophetic future” I found myself unconsciously going back to that theory of definiteness/indefiniteness that I was taught, but which I had ignored for so long.)

 

I wasn't taught this model of the verb. In fact, I was taught other models, but came to realise their shortcomings the more I read the Hebrew Bible. This model I've developed has actually been honed over a number of years coming to grips with the Hebrew text and adapting conclusions in light of the texts themselves. It's not a superimposed model. You might think so, and you're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't observed my thought processes over the years. Therefore, your take on reality is purely your own.

This shows that I made a presumption.

Before anyone makes the same mistake of making a presumption, I started trying to read according to what I was taught. I found that the grammars didn’t explain the patterns I read, that is other than a description of the paradigms. So I decided to read merely for the ideas expressed in the text, not to try to explain the grammar. It’s only in recent years, goaded by discussions on this list, that I decided to take a second look at grammar, and to present what appears to me to be the case. As a result, much of what I think appears to be the case is tentative, and may be wrong, therefore I’m open to people showing me corrections and examples that show why the corrections are needed. So far, I have made some changes in my understanding of grammar based on what others have brought up in discussion, but so far no one has brought up any examples that show the central understanding of verbal grammar is wrong.

 

And as is usually the case, your views can be quite idiosyncratic and supported by very few, if any.

Truth is not decided by how many support it, in fact it’s a logical fallacy to bring that up as an argument. It doesn’t matter to me how many others support my theory, what counts is, is that understanding of Biblical Hebrew grammar correct or not? If not, why not? Give examples. If your examples are good enough, they can force me to modify or even reject my understanding. If fact, looking back over the grammar as I have written it so far, much is still tentative.

… No model can claim to be 100% watertight—language is not that kind of thing that could allow such accuracy.

Agree 100%. My previous comments of “fuzzy line” and “judgment call” indicate that understanding.

 

But where there are weaknesses in my model, I'm happy for people to point them out with evidence, so that we can discuss them constructively with a view to improvement or revision.

Rolf has made his statistical analysis for his dissertation, and I point to the examples included in Proverbs 31:11–31, where all the verbs are used in a context of indefinite, present tense, imperfective aspect, indicative mood, showing that none of these ideas explain why the verbs are conjugated as Qatals and Yiqtols (and Wayyiqtols). Further the Yiqtols and Wayyiqtols are treated exactly the same in this passage, showing that they are not separate conjugations.

The pattern in this passage shows why Wayyiqtol is so often used in narrative past tense, without it being a marker for past tense.

 

If, however, people are simply aiming to caricature or despise, then I won't deal with them. I'll deal with folks who are aiming to understand, not win. I prefer to be part of a learning community.

Agree. 

Felicitations, Karl.

GEORGE ATHAS

Dean of Research,

Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)

Sydney, Australia

Karl W. Randolph.